Democrats look to strip Secret Service protection from Trump if he's convicted

if the right wants to blame his death on Biden\Dems, then we will remind them Trump was President at the time

 

people earn their social security too, but they lose that if they go to prison

 

Laken Riley was a woman, not a 'his'

 

oh, I agree, but I do not think he will

 

Obama ordered two United States citizens killed. He should be charged with murder.

 

If Trump is convicted before the bill is signed, it can't be applied to Trump.

 

MOOT Point...
The bill is a joke and completely DOA...

 

Actually RJF Jr, but while I like the idea of holding the POTUS responsible for their actions, this is not the way. For all the politicians, we can certainly build a multistage prison, and we could probably fill it up pretty quick, we still need to follow the process we have until a better way is formulated for ex POTUS.

 

It absolutely can be

Hopefully if everything works out the way you are concerned about they can just place him in solitary confinement. He will be safe there

 

What's with that Trump should be able to get a pass at every turn? It's unhealthy. If Joe Biden was indicted by a Grand Jury and was subsequently convicted of a serious crime, I'd have zero ****s about him going to jail. This, Trump above all else, is a terrible sickness....Hezus

 

First of all, it is good to see the proper description "framed" being used when referring to this vendetta.
Secondly, the judge should be forced to address him as Mr. President since this a a formal Kangaroo court.

 

There is no law for the judge to address Trump as Mr President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presi...s reserved,when addressing a former president.
Historically, the title was reserved for the incumbent president only, and was not to be used for former presidents, holding that it was not proper to use the title as a courtesy title when addressing a former president.[16][17][18][19][20] According to the official website of the United States of America, the correct way to address a letter is to use "The Honorable John Doe" and the correct salutation is "Mr. Doe".[21]

 

Except, you'll never believe that Biden is ever guilty of anything. Notice how you qualified it with "serious crime"? The new York case is far from a "serious crime". Obama and Sanders violated the Federal campaign finance laws and they only got fined and I'm sure you're ok with that. But Trump? Oh yeah! You want him in jail...lol.

But, there's the difference between those of us with a brain and the Leftists: we believe in applying the Constitution to everyone, including Biden. If Biden were in Trump's position right now and Congress was trying to pass a law that removed his Secret Service detail, that was going to be applied retroactively (ex post facto), I would make the exact same argument I'm making for Trump. This isn't a "free pass". It's literally how the supreme law of the land works and it prohibits ex post facto law.

It also prohibits bills of attainder, which is what this basically is.

Stop acting like any of you give a rat's ass about fairness, or justice and be honest for a change and admit that you just want Trump in jail because you hate him.

 

No it can't. Laws can't be applied retroactively.

Read the the Constitution...

"Article I, Section 9, Clause 3:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."


"An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

The Founders saw the moron Democrats coming, over 200 years ago.

 

Is your law license up to date?

I don't think so.

 

I don't need a law license to read the Constitution.

 

That means they cannot criminalize something that wasn’t illegal when committed.

The act trump did — if convicted — is criminal currently. This will just be adjusting the penalties of such.

Here is a brief explainer so you can correct your statements to be accurate going forward
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ret...ing retroactive,time of the alleged violation.

 

WBK, are you proud of yourself? You just made up a ton of **** and then projected it onto me. Was confession helpful?

 

I didn't make up anything.

 

And based on that, and the history of your posts, there appears to be also a lack of comprehension and credibility that make your posts seem emotional rather than legal foresight.

 

No, that's not what it means.

Let's look at it again...

"An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law."

 

Is that best you can do? Personal attacks?...lol

 

I'm going by your words, and your words lack credibility.

 

I quoted the Constitution. Are you saying the Constitution lacks credibility? I'm sure you think so...lol

 

There's literally a legion of lawyers that specialize in constitutional law.

Why don't you stick to the Bible, that is at least an interpretation that can mean anything you want it to be.